New London west airport
And as for IATA, the International Association of Travel Agents ... Travel agents are in business to sell travel, what do they know, I'd place more faith in Estate Agents knowing what they are talking about than I would Travel Agents.
But either way, it's pretty pointless arguing about designations, we all know where those places are, and how near or far they are from London. Changing names won't change that.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Cloud 9
Posts: 2,948
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DR,
You'd be surprised how many people don't realise where these places are ...
I was working in association with an Italian airline and we needed to get a Captain from Frankfaurt am Main to Rome (FCO) ... the morons booked him a 6am departure from Hahn ... try explaining to a senior Captain that he needs to get up at 1am to travel pretty much all the way to the Luxembourg border to then travel on the sh1ttiest of airlines to the wrong airport on the wrong side of Rome!
You'd be surprised how many people don't realise where these places are ...
I was working in association with an Italian airline and we needed to get a Captain from Frankfaurt am Main to Rome (FCO) ... the morons booked him a 6am departure from Hahn ... try explaining to a senior Captain that he needs to get up at 1am to travel pretty much all the way to the Luxembourg border to then travel on the sh1ttiest of airlines to the wrong airport on the wrong side of Rome!
This is by no means a new scheme. It's basically the original Cliffe design transplanted to Oxfordshire, and dates from about 10 years ago.
The DfT commissioned a review of the proposal in 2003:
http://www.pleiade.org/projectzone/L...ion_031864.pdf
Makes interesting reading.
The DfT commissioned a review of the proposal in 2003:
http://www.pleiade.org/projectzone/L...ion_031864.pdf
Makes interesting reading.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Chobham
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
West London / Oxfordshire Airport / Upper Heyford
The only option that makes the remotest sense is Upper Heyford redevelopment - over and above the 2003 'LOX' proposal:
Right now, the world and their wife want to put up wind turbines all over this area, so a little debate on these lines ought to put the cat amongst the pidgeons!
- Its current runway is good enough for A380s - huge
- Assuming 300m+ spacing, there's space to the north for at least two more runways in the zone between somerton, Fritwell, Ardley, Lower Heyford and Middleton Stoney. To the west the land drops noticeably but within that zone, it's pretty flat.
- The M40, junction 10 is under a mile away, the Marylebone rail line is meters away from the end of the runway.
- Significant improvements to that line could in theory bring London access in 30 minutes - the establishment of HS2 nearby - if that happens, with a spur to Heyford would bring London access in a little over 20 minutes
- Bicester, a few miles away, is a rapidly growing town with a massiver house building program and significant redevelopment anticipated over the next decade - the main shopping zone (Bicester Vilage) there already sees six million shoppers a year
- A lot of the infrastructure isn't in bad condition - built for cold war bombers etc. taxiways and aprons are built like proverbial brick outhouses
- It's halfway between Birmingham and Heathrow
- Developers and Cherwell District Council have been mucking around for 15 years wondering what to do with the site with no real progress whatsoever
Right now, the world and their wife want to put up wind turbines all over this area, so a little debate on these lines ought to put the cat amongst the pidgeons!
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: “Thinking of a location for a 'West London' aiport, if we simply look at where there is logical space could it not fit either north of the M4 between Reading and Maidenhead, or south of the M4 between Maidenhead and Bracknell?”
Nice one, the latter is slap bang in the middle of Teresa May’s constituency!
Quote: “That would be an unusual confiuration. For an airport with 4 parallel runways, assuming the terminals are in the middle, the norm is to use the two outers for landings and the inners for takeoffs.”
Permanent segregated mode? with alternation or not?
Quote: “Don't you think that, given the furore over the destruction of Sipson, if the planners thought that they could add both R3 and R4 in one fell swoop with a MAN-type offset dependent parallel arrangement, we would have seen some proposals before now ?”
Quote: “You have yet to justify why you - alone among all the planners - believe that two autonomous runways can be accommodated in the space between the A4 and M4.”
Don’t need to. By the way, am NOT a planner.
(1) Look how close other pairs of parallel rwys are, on all the plans for new estuary airports, at Ringway, etc., so it will easily fit in.
(2) Did mention the need for more demolition (not as much as south of the airport obviously), so yes, there is room for two 7,200 ft rwys. Am not alone, there are many suggestions for 2 more rwys including talk about crossing the M25 for a third and fourth (persumably to allow longer rwys). All options appear to be on/off the table.
(3) Actually it’s more realistic than the often mentioned 2 more rwys at Gatwick, as Horley and crawley are in the way. These are big towns as opposed to already blighted villages north of Heathrow (blighted because of thirty years of dither!).
(4) Of course BAA haven’t applied for this, look at the stick they are getting over just a third! Perhaps they should have as they'll have to sooner or later.
Quote: “I was referring to officially designated London Airports which are LHR, LGW & STN ... LCY comes along but isn't a real airport only being able to accept Puddle Jumpers.
It's not about location, it's about designation, if it were all about location then we could have London/Denham, London/Fairoaks, London/Stapleford Tawney, London/Rochester, London/Redhill, London/Farnborough, London/Blackbushe, London/White Waltham, London/Elstree, London/Booker, London/North Weald etc. etc. etc. and all of these, much the same as Luton, Southend, Lydd & Oxford etc. have, could call themselves "London" whilst not being designated as "London".”
It’s not just airports subject to this nonsense. There is, for example:
“West Thames College London” (former Isleworth Polytechnic, and nothing to do with London University);
“Kingston University London” (former Kingston technical College and nothing to do with London University);
and “West London University” (former Thames Valley University, former Slough and Ealing Technical Colleges).
Students attending these establishments may not be aware of the long train journey plus one or tube rides to get up to London and the same might to people staying at “London Twickenham Travelodge”.
Also don’t forget about going to "the dogs": “London Wimbledon Stadium”.
Guess it some kind of trendy passing marketing trend/fad (yawn).
Quote: “This is by no means a new scheme. It's basically the original Cliffe design transplanted to Oxfordshire, and dates from about 10 years ago.
The DfT commissioned a review of the proposal in 2003:
http://www.pleiade.org/projectzone/L...ion_031864.pdf
Makes interesting reading.”
What a load of nonsense, and overtaken by events: Kidlington is now “London Oxford“!
A sensible librarian would put it on the “fiction” shelves.
Not surprising they then approved Heathrow expansion in 2003!
It’s fantasy island all over again, and way too far out. If we’re seriously considering airports this distant, should we criticise FR if they decide to rename Hurn and call it “London West”?
Nice one, the latter is slap bang in the middle of Teresa May’s constituency!
Quote: “That would be an unusual confiuration. For an airport with 4 parallel runways, assuming the terminals are in the middle, the norm is to use the two outers for landings and the inners for takeoffs.”
Permanent segregated mode? with alternation or not?
Quote: “Don't you think that, given the furore over the destruction of Sipson, if the planners thought that they could add both R3 and R4 in one fell swoop with a MAN-type offset dependent parallel arrangement, we would have seen some proposals before now ?”
Quote: “You have yet to justify why you - alone among all the planners - believe that two autonomous runways can be accommodated in the space between the A4 and M4.”
Don’t need to. By the way, am NOT a planner.
(1) Look how close other pairs of parallel rwys are, on all the plans for new estuary airports, at Ringway, etc., so it will easily fit in.
(2) Did mention the need for more demolition (not as much as south of the airport obviously), so yes, there is room for two 7,200 ft rwys. Am not alone, there are many suggestions for 2 more rwys including talk about crossing the M25 for a third and fourth (persumably to allow longer rwys). All options appear to be on/off the table.
(3) Actually it’s more realistic than the often mentioned 2 more rwys at Gatwick, as Horley and crawley are in the way. These are big towns as opposed to already blighted villages north of Heathrow (blighted because of thirty years of dither!).
(4) Of course BAA haven’t applied for this, look at the stick they are getting over just a third! Perhaps they should have as they'll have to sooner or later.
Quote: “I was referring to officially designated London Airports which are LHR, LGW & STN ... LCY comes along but isn't a real airport only being able to accept Puddle Jumpers.
It's not about location, it's about designation, if it were all about location then we could have London/Denham, London/Fairoaks, London/Stapleford Tawney, London/Rochester, London/Redhill, London/Farnborough, London/Blackbushe, London/White Waltham, London/Elstree, London/Booker, London/North Weald etc. etc. etc. and all of these, much the same as Luton, Southend, Lydd & Oxford etc. have, could call themselves "London" whilst not being designated as "London".”
It’s not just airports subject to this nonsense. There is, for example:
“West Thames College London” (former Isleworth Polytechnic, and nothing to do with London University);
“Kingston University London” (former Kingston technical College and nothing to do with London University);
and “West London University” (former Thames Valley University, former Slough and Ealing Technical Colleges).
Students attending these establishments may not be aware of the long train journey plus one or tube rides to get up to London and the same might to people staying at “London Twickenham Travelodge”.
Also don’t forget about going to "the dogs": “London Wimbledon Stadium”.
Guess it some kind of trendy passing marketing trend/fad (yawn).
Quote: “This is by no means a new scheme. It's basically the original Cliffe design transplanted to Oxfordshire, and dates from about 10 years ago.
The DfT commissioned a review of the proposal in 2003:
http://www.pleiade.org/projectzone/L...ion_031864.pdf
Makes interesting reading.”
What a load of nonsense, and overtaken by events: Kidlington is now “London Oxford“!
A sensible librarian would put it on the “fiction” shelves.
Not surprising they then approved Heathrow expansion in 2003!
It’s fantasy island all over again, and way too far out. If we’re seriously considering airports this distant, should we criticise FR if they decide to rename Hurn and call it “London West”?
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 11th Sep 2012 at 13:40.
Am not alone, there are many suggestions for 2 more rwys including talk about crossing the M25 for a third and fourth (presumably to allow longer rwys).
All options appear to be on/off the table.
All options appear to be on/off the table.
Could you point us to a documented example of a serious proposal showing how two runways would be laid out north of the existing airport ?
By that I don't mean back-of-the-envelope stuff, we can all do that.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've just spent an hour reading this thread, and despite being a massive fan of an all-new airport, I think that I would go for a massive expansion at the current London airports instead. Why?
1) Very large construction cost of new airport. Whilst Abingdon and Boris Island would be fantastic facilities, they would require huge ancillary construction of houses, roads, railways etc, and associated disruption/outcry.
2) Long lead time - even if the decision was made today, we are probably 10 years away from the start of construction
3)LHR, LGW and STN have the required infrastructure connections already in place - you have a decent motorway and rail link to each airport.
Therefore, we should:
LGW - build new runway following line of A23 north of Crawley. New terminal. Extend M23 into central London as was planned in 1970s.
STN - new parallel runway.
LHR - effectively re-define the land use enclosed by the following area: M25/M4/A312/A30. There is space to put a close parallel runway along a line of the A4, and a new segregated runway on a line of the M4. This plan requires demolition of all buildings between 09L/27R and West Drayton, and puts the M4 in a tunnel.
You may balk at what I propose for LHR, but on balance it's less destructive then a new-build airport.
1) Very large construction cost of new airport. Whilst Abingdon and Boris Island would be fantastic facilities, they would require huge ancillary construction of houses, roads, railways etc, and associated disruption/outcry.
2) Long lead time - even if the decision was made today, we are probably 10 years away from the start of construction
3)LHR, LGW and STN have the required infrastructure connections already in place - you have a decent motorway and rail link to each airport.
Therefore, we should:
LGW - build new runway following line of A23 north of Crawley. New terminal. Extend M23 into central London as was planned in 1970s.
STN - new parallel runway.
LHR - effectively re-define the land use enclosed by the following area: M25/M4/A312/A30. There is space to put a close parallel runway along a line of the A4, and a new segregated runway on a line of the M4. This plan requires demolition of all buildings between 09L/27R and West Drayton, and puts the M4 in a tunnel.
You may balk at what I propose for LHR, but on balance it's less destructive then a new-build airport.
LHR - effectively re-define the land use enclosed by the following area: M25/M4/A312/A30. There is space to put a close parallel runway along a line of the A4, and a new segregated runway on a line of the M4. This plan requires demolition of all buildings between 09L/27R and West Drayton, and puts the M4 in a tunnel.
You may balk at what I propose for LHR, but on balance it's less destructive then a new-build airport.
That's quite some land-grab.
I see Boris is starting to examine "alternative uses" for Heathrow once Boris Island becomes operational.
I trust they won't include housing, because housing values all around Heathrow will plummet once air traffic starts to be reduced. Well done all those who winged and whined about aircraft passing by. There goes your children's inheritance (and quite possibly their jobs as well).
There are, what, 50,000 total employees who report to Heathrow in aviation and allied services, they will all be selling up and moving over to the east (to houses in Kent which, of course, don't exist yet and will be vigorously opposed by Nimbys. Or they could commute by M25. Only about 150 miles round trip every day, by that well-known, always clear, Dartford Tunnel.
Meanwhile, compared to the current motorways from four directions, Underground, rail link, local roads, etc, to access Heathrow, every plan I've seen of Boris Island shows one access road over the sea and one rail link "express", only to Central London. Yes, just one rail link for the UK's premier port of entry. Goodness, Al Qaeda and Bob Crow between them must be licking their lips ........
I trust they won't include housing, because housing values all around Heathrow will plummet once air traffic starts to be reduced. Well done all those who winged and whined about aircraft passing by. There goes your children's inheritance (and quite possibly their jobs as well).
There are, what, 50,000 total employees who report to Heathrow in aviation and allied services, they will all be selling up and moving over to the east (to houses in Kent which, of course, don't exist yet and will be vigorously opposed by Nimbys. Or they could commute by M25. Only about 150 miles round trip every day, by that well-known, always clear, Dartford Tunnel.
Meanwhile, compared to the current motorways from four directions, Underground, rail link, local roads, etc, to access Heathrow, every plan I've seen of Boris Island shows one access road over the sea and one rail link "express", only to Central London. Yes, just one rail link for the UK's premier port of entry. Goodness, Al Qaeda and Bob Crow between them must be licking their lips ........
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Chobham
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Couple of points re Upper Heyford - its a bit over 60 miles from the west end but the M40 is the fastest motorway in the UK and has less traffic or congestion than all the other key London arterial routes - it's just 50 miles from the M25 (40 minutes drive). A high speed link like the Shanghai monorail would get people there from central London in 20 minutes - likewise any HS2 spur would be a sub 30 minute run, easily.
Were a hub established there and Heathrow wound down or limited to any degree, LHR employees/staff would find it a lot easier to migrate up the road to Heyford rather than across London to any scheme around the estuary or indeed an expanded Gatwick.
It's really the only relatively flat piece of ground with scope for three runways in that Oxfordshire/Buckinghamshire arc.
It's a far better bet than the original 2003 'LOX' proposal next to Abingdon or the re-development of Brize Norton which are notably further and of course not in a direct line between the UK's second city, Birmingham and London.
Were a hub established there and Heathrow wound down or limited to any degree, LHR employees/staff would find it a lot easier to migrate up the road to Heyford rather than across London to any scheme around the estuary or indeed an expanded Gatwick.
It's really the only relatively flat piece of ground with scope for three runways in that Oxfordshire/Buckinghamshire arc.
It's a far better bet than the original 2003 'LOX' proposal next to Abingdon or the re-development of Brize Norton which are notably further and of course not in a direct line between the UK's second city, Birmingham and London.
It's really the only relatively flat piece of ground with scope for three runways in that Oxfordshire/Buckinghamshire arc.
The only direction UH could expand is to the south, which would put the 30,000 residents of Bicester under the R4 approach (nobody is going to promote a replacement hub with only 3 runways).
